A Reflection on the SC Decision granting the Quo Warranto ousting CJ Sereno

By Ralph Espiritu

Quo Warranto

A Quo Warranto is Under the Rules of Court is the proper remedy against public officers

in ousting from office. This remedy should be commenced within one year after such cause;

otherwise, the action will be barred. A petition for quo warranto under the Omnibus Election

Code requires that the quo warrant to be raised on grounds of disloyalty or ineligibility of the

winning candidate. It is a proceeding which is intended to unseat said elected candidate from

office. As of recent, the supreme Court have decided to oust Chief Justice Sereno from her

position through a quo warranto proceeding. This process holds a lot baffled and raising

questions of grave abuse of discretion as well as allegations that foul play may be involeved

therein.

Impeachment

Impeachment is also a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men.

In addition, it has as its purpose which is to protect the people from official delinquencies or

malfeasances. It is primarily intended for the protection of the State, not for the punishment of

the offender. According to the 1987 constitution and recognized as an absolute rule to the

country or at least until the alleged ousting was that as a supreme court justice it is only through

an impeachment that they may be impeached. According to Section 2 Article 11 of the 1987

Constitution:
 “The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the

Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from

office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution,

treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All

other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but

not by impeachment.”

Among the impeachable officers are members of the supreme court on grounds of (1)

Culpable violation of the Constitution, (2) Treason, (3) Bribery, (4) Graft and corruption, (5) Other

high crimes, and (6) Betrayal of public trust. The acts which are impeachable grounds however

must be committed in the performance of the official’s public office. In addition to this restriction

to impeach, Sec 3 (5) provides that:

“(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more

than once within a period of one year.”

Other restriction includes that the impeachment proceeding must first go through the

House of Representative requiring at least 1/3 of its member’s approval for initiating and

subsequently, in order for a conviction, it requires 2/3 approval of the members of the Senate as

well the members of the Senate generally those who would preside over the trial. The several

restrictions present in availing of the impeachment proceeding in on account of check and

balances. The basis for the several hindering processes requiring members of the Congress to

basically wholly approve of the action is in order that the impeachment action to not manipulated

for the sake of circumventing legal processes. Likewise, if the impeachment procedure is handled

by members of the same department then there can be an abuse in power in removing respected
colleague on account of a difference of opinion or principle although nothing unlawful to warrant

removal.

Due to the doctrine behind impeachment and also quo warranto, the decision of the

supreme Court in ousting CJ Sereno is violative of her rights in the constitution and regardless is

still a clear disregard of our Constitution and what it stands for. The Constitution is clear in that

the procedure warranted in ousting CJ Sereno is through an impeachment proceeding as stated

in Article 11 however in undergoing the quo warranto and granting it holding CJ as ousted then

it blatantly disregards procedure of the Constitution which in itself is a culpable offense by the

eyes of law the supreme court justice itself.

Check and Balances

The check and balance is one of the inviolable doctrine recognized by at least all persons

who have passed the bar in the Philippines. The check and balance requires that all department

of the government is separate however they are subject to certain reliefs in cases abuse such as

the judiciary’s power the assail public officers’ actions which was committed in grave abuse of

discretion, the Presidents power to veto powers of laws and the Congress impeachment power

provided in the Constitution. The check and balance serves as a means to keep the best interests

of its citizens.

Legislative Branch

The Constitution provides that the Legislative Branch has the powers to legislate, confirms or

reject Presidential appointments, and the authority to declare war. This branch includes Congress

(the Senate and House of Representatives) and smaller agencies providing support services to it.
Executive Department

According to the Constitution, the executive branch has for him the power to enforce laws and

regulations which were generally legislated by Congress. The branch comprises of the President,

Vice President, his Cabinet Members, executive departments (such as DAR, DA, DBM, DepEd,

DOE, DENR, DOF, DFA, DOH, DILG, DICT, DOJ, DOLE, DND, DPWH, DST, DSWD, DOT, DTI and

DOTr), independent agencies, and other boards, commissions, and committees.

Judicial Department

The judicial branch under the constitution have the power to construct the laws, applying the

provisions of law in cases of dispute and controversies, and make alleviate said controversy, and

also order the inapplicability of the law given the circumstance are on account of its gross

inconsistency with the Constitution. The judicial branch is comprised of the Supreme Court, Court

of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Ombudsman, Regional Trial Courts, Barangay

justice, and in such lower courts as may be established by law.

Public Outcry

Although the Supreme Court are steadfast with their decision as mention, several public

outcries have already commenced rallying and raising voices over the said arbitration. In the

University of the Philippines Los Baños, an event called “WE DISSENT Mobilization for Judicial

Independence @UPLB” was organized calling for the ouster of President Rodrigo Duterte.

According to a spokesperson, aside from questioning the decision of the Supreme Court, the

protest was legitimately called for the ousting of the President. That the solicitor general as part
of the executive branch, in filing the quo warranto petition is a display of the President of its

powers usurping all three branches of government therefore leading to a defacto dictatorship.

In Congress, Minority senators are meeting and stand that only the Senate could remove

impeachable officials. Presently an opposition is being prepared by the senators. Upfront calling

the allege acts as unconstitutional. According to Senator Drilon:

“We are looking at the possibility of moving for a sense of the Senate resolution

reiterating our legal position that it is the Senate acting, as an impeachment court, who

can remove impeachable officers,”

Senators such as Pimentel and Drilon have reiterated to the public that the 1987

Constitution clearly states that the proper way to oust impeachable officer is through an

impeachment presided by the Senate and not through quo warranto petition.

Impartiality

Aside from members of the Congress, Prominent lawyers such as Christian Monsod which

was part of the 1986 Constitutional Commission expressed his disapproval in the decision and

that the reasoning by the petitioners were “a blatant exhibition of arrogance.” Atty Monsod

states that the constitutional provision distinguished between “impeachable officers” and “all

other public officers and employees” which may be removed from office as provided by law, but

not by impeachment.
 Atty Monsod head the committee in drafting the provision on the accountability of public

officers including the provision on impeachment. He raised several points such as in removing CJ

Sereno, the Supreme Court ruled that a quo warranto case could still be filed by the state even

after a year from the cause of such action. The fact that the justice has refused to inhibit

themselves in deciding the issue is highly appalling and is raised by several members of society

whether they are Public Officers or Not.

The Impartiality was further brought to the courts attention by Sereno’s motions calling

for five justices she accused of bias and prejudice to be inhibited citing New Code of Judicial

Conduct Canon 3, Sec.5(a):

“judges are required to disqualify themselves from a proceeding should they have

personal bias or prejudice against any party in the proceeding.”

Former chief justice Reynato Puno have mention the importance of impartiality stating

that under Sec 1 Rule 137 of the Rules of Court provides that a party has the right to seek

inhibition of a judge who is not disinterested in the outcome of the case. A judge must maintain

its integrity as a public impartial arbitrator to keep with what the court has continued to stand

for. It’s as such a given right for an individual to seek a judge disqualified if the bias and prejudice

has sufficiently proven.

Supreme Court Reason

The Supreme Court however has also been hesitant and well aware of what entertaining

and furthermore granting the petition would entail. They state that:
 “insinuations that the Justices of the Supreme Court are towing the line of

President Duterte in entertaining the quo warranto petition must be struck for being

unfounded and for sowing seeds of mistrust and discordance between the Court and the

public. The Members of the Court are beholden to no one, except to the sovereign Filipino

people who ordained and promulgated the Constitution. It is thus inappropriate to

misrepresent that the Solicitor General who has supposedly met consistent litigation

success before the Supreme Court shall likewise automatically and positively be received

in the present quo warranto action.”

The Court remain steadfast that their decision was on grounds that the it found her

“ineligible" to hold the CJ Sereno post due to her failure “to file a substantial number of SALNs

and to submit the required SALNs to the JBC during her application for the position.” This is

consistent with the grounds that a quo warranto is warranted to protect the people from official

delinquencies or malfeasances. However, several of the Justices have expressed that this is a

violation of the constitution. According to dissenting justice Leonen, he states that the decisions

is "a legal abomination" while dissenting justice Caguioa state that the case is essentially a "

seppuku (ritual suicide) of the court without honor."

Senate Resolution

As of present, a resolution is being passed by the minority of the Senate expressing its

dissatisfaction of the SC resolution. The resolution as of present is being passed for signatures.

According to Senator Aquino:

 “We appeal to the Senate to stand together and call out the Supreme Court for

violating the rule of law and denying the Filipino people their right to hear the truth

through a public impeachment trial,”

However, it is unsure what Senate’s next course of action after acquiring sufficient

signatures. According to Senator Aquino, as citizens of the country, we should be active and

dissent the decision of the Supreme Court else it infringed on the “sacredness” of the

Constitution.

In my opinion, the proper course of action now is to seek assistance from international

tribunals. Human Rights Tribunals can take cognizance in cases when the justice system have

become incapable of rendering an impartial judgement resulting in depriving persons of due

process and similar rights. Here the tribunal can judge and likewise rest the case on whether the

Supreme Court Justice acted outside their jurisdiction and should have voluntarily inhibited.

Through this both the public case rest their public outcry of impeaching the entire of the judiciary

as well as die down the wildfire rumors of President Duterte’s plans to have sole control of the

government as well as salvage the integrity of the court through having an indifferent tribunal

unaffected by local media and influential persons of the country render a decision.